[translation] At 10am on July 27 in Longyangshan
village, Shuitou town, Pingyang county, Zhejiang province, more than 500
urban administrators and security guards holding batons clashed violently
with villagers over the land requisitioning for the Number 57 Provincial
Expressway. The unarmed villagers were chased and assaulted.
Countless numbers of villagers fell to the ground!

[015] Do You Have A
Checkered Hat? If Not, Shut Up! (2011/07/28) When Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao held his press conference in Wenzhou today, there were many
reporters with checkered hats. Yes, it was a hot day and it would be
wise to cover up your hat. But how did so many people manage to get the
same checkered hats? The 'rumor' is that these reporters are the ones
who had been selected and allowed to ask questions. Anyone else without
a checkered hat can raise their hands until hell freezes over without being
picked out.

1. The number of deaths: The initial number
reported in the media was 35 deaths. Then somebody created a table
enumerating the number of deaths in 37 major incidents between 1993 and
2011. The astonishing thing was that all numbers were between 33 and
35! The explanation was that if and when the number of deaths exceed
35, then the senior government/party officials would be dismissed from
their jobs. Therefore, the number is always artificially kept under
the magical number 35.

Someone actually went back to check the number of deaths
in these listed incidents. It was found that 18 of the numbers were
wrong. However, people remain amazed at the fact that more than half
(19 out of 37) of the numbers were correct. Well, the problem here
is that the original author went and looked up major incidents in which
the number of deaths was between 33 and 35 (as opposed to "ALL" major
incidents) but his/her work was so sloppy that 18 of the numbers were
wrong. Obviously, if you go looking for major incidents in which the
number of deaths was between 33 and 35, the number of deaths will be
between 33 and 35. And if you look at "ALL" major incidents
(assuming that you know how to define them), the number of deaths will
follow a wider distribution.

2. The hand inside the train compartment.
See the Brief Comment below about how the hand of a rescuer as photographed
by Xinhua reporter Ju Huanzong became evidence that someone was buried
alive.

3. Hong Kong citizens march to express "deepest
condolences to the families of the victims" and to demand a "thorough
investigation for the truth."

On August 29, 2010, Hong Kong citizens marched for the
hostages who were killed in Manila by an armed kidnapper. This photo
was taken at the time. Of course, the person who made that post had
plausible deniability on his/her side. Everything in this statement is true: Hong
Kong citizens march to express "deepest condolences to the families of the
victims" and to demand a "thorough investigation for the truth." But
if you conclude that the Hong Kong citizens are marching in this photo for
the Wenzhou train crash victims, then you are just plain stupid for
over-reading.

3. "The Wenzhou government refused to bury the train
compartments! They have guts! Praises to Chen Deyong! He
is an exceptionally fine Party Secretary!"

The above photo shows the "buried" train compartments of
D3115 and D301 still visible in plain sight. After it became known
that the train compartments had not been buried, the rumor mutated into:
"The three train compartments that were buried were excavated after the
outcry on the microblogs and the State Council's Investigation Leadership
Team decided to re-examine the cause of the incident."

4. There was a video in which people said that a
"body" fell out of a carriage that was being moved elsewhere. Indeed
shortly afterwards, rescuers were seen to be carrying a body away from the
location where the "body" fell.

A close analysis of the video showed that the the object
that fell down during the move was not a human body. There was a
body covered in blue canvas on the ground before the object fell,
and it was this body that was carried out later on.

5. Wenzhou Police SWAT team captain Shao Yerong
refused an order by a Ministry of Railroad person and continued to search
for victims. Eventually he found a small young girl who was still
alive. Shao was reprimanded as a result of his disobedience.

Q: At the time, the detection equipment showed no sign
of life.
A: Those instruments of ours cannot be said to be omnipotent.

Q: Did anyone say to stop searching for the sign of
life and to move on to the next phase?
A: We did not hear that. We were only told that every second
counts and that we must not give up. We were to search every
corner in every train compartment.

[Explanation: Shao Yerong disagreed with the Internet
assertion that he disobeyed an order from above. He said that they
kept working on the rescue effort the whole time, without anyone issuing
specific orders (such as dismantling the trains).

Q: The most controversy now is that someone wanted to
take the trains elsewhere in order to dismantle them. You were
present at the time. Was this it?
A: They wanted to lift and lower the train compartments under the bridge
onto the ground in order to continue the rescue effort, as opposed to
working on the bridge. With respect to this issue, we insisted on
continuing the rescue effort on the bridge.

Q: Who is this "they"?
A: There was a railroad worker at the scene at the time. He said
that. If we lift the train compartment, we can cause a second
round of injuries, because there would be shifts in pressure as the
equipment moves and some things may fall into the air. Under these
circumstances, we continued to work under the bridge. We did not
give up, we did not give up.

Q. When did you find the little girl?
A: There was a train compartment on top. After we moved it away, I
and the firefighters climbed on top of the train compartment.
After we moved off one body, we found a small hand still moving.
That motion touched our feelings.

6. On the morning of July 25, a post entitled <The Red
Cross of China Society calls on everybody to donate to the 7.23 train
crash> appeared on the microblogs and forums. Recently, the Red
Cross of China Society had been plagued by a loss of public confidence as
a result of the "Guo Meimei Baby" incident, and this call added fuel to
the fire. The Red Cross of China Society issued a statement: "As of
now, the Red Cross of China Society headquarters, the Red Cross of China
Foundation, the Zhejiang Province Red Cross Society and the Wenzhou Red
Cross Society have not made any call to solicit donations in relation to
the Wenzhou train crash."

7. It was reported that the passenger luggage had been
buried in order to ensure that the identities (and hence the total number)
of passengers stay unknown. Wenzhou Railroad South Station director
Lu Qingxiang said that the luggage has been sorted, numbered and recorded.
Passengers or their appointed friends/relatives can pick up the luggage by
calling 0577-56657882 for arrangements.

8. The names of the deceased were not released in a
timely manner, leading people to suspect that there must be a cover-up on
the total number of deaths. The explanation is that the deceased
must be found, photographed, identified, documented and tested (for DNA)
and their families be notified first before their names can be released
publicly. After the initial list was released, scammers began
calling the families: "I am with the XXX Hospital. Your relative was
injured during the Wenzhou train crash and he/she needs to undergo
emergency surgery. You must wire YYY yuan to this bank account
immediately!"

Meanwhile, an interview with a surviving train conductor
led people to conclude that the train personnel knew that a disaster was
about to take place and therefore none of them died because they were
prepared. However, the list of deceased persons includes at least
one train conductor.

9. Jinan Railway Bureau director An Lusheng was
previously relieved of his post as a result of the Jiaoji train crash, but
he was promoted to become the Shanghai Railway Bureau director after the
7.23 Wenzhou train crash. One Weibo VIP blogger wrote: "So one wolf
leaves but another jackal arrives -- the people are lamb to be
slaughtered." In 2008, the Jinan Railway Bureau director Chen Gong
and the Jinan Railway Bureau party secretary Chai Tiemin were sanctioned
as a result of the train crash, along with 37 other persons who were held
responsible. An Lusheng was with the Jinan Railway Bureau at the
time but he was not one of those held responsible.

10. For the families of the deceased, "signing an
agreement within a short time will result in a signing bonus worth several
tens of thousands of yuan." This report was forwarded by Beijing
News and many other media outlet, but the original report at Wenzhou net
has disappeared. In any case, the Wenzhou City Publicity Department
said: It is untrue that the victims' families can earn early signing
bonuses.

Yesterday at around 16:50, the Sina.com user "Big
Brother Treasure Item" posted on his microblog: "I carefully analyzed the
photo <High Resolution: From The Scene Of The Train Crash Incident> taken
by the Xinhua report. At the time, several excavators were
dismantling the train carriage. From the windows, two hands can be
clearly seen. These two hands looked soft, so that they do not
belong to a dead person with rigor mortis. So who gave these
rescuers the power to bury someone alive? I strong urge that they be
pursued in accordance with the law." This netizen included the link
to the said photo.

"Big Brother Treasure Item" was referring to the photo
taken by Xinhua reporter Ju Huanzong on July 24 while the scene was being
cleaned up. In this photo, it can been seen that the carriage was
severely damage. Through one window, one can seen a hand being held
in mid-air.

Since it was reported that the train locomotive was
buried, this netizen questioned whether people had been buried alive along
with it. This photo was quickly disseminated with the relevant part
(in the red circle) being magnified. The title was "Chasing after
the murderers who buried people alive." Many celebrities with the V
(for verified) designation joined in the chase as well. Gong Weijie
wrote: "I thank the camera for clearly restoring this horrific scene!
I am saddened by the fact that in spite of these tragedies, these horrific
things will continue to occur! This microblog post has been deleted
many times already."

Apart from the Sina.com microblogs, the Internet user "yigyuB"
posted this and other photos to the Tianya Forum under the title <Large
movement of the train wreckage, nobody realized that there were people
still inside>. Within ten hours or so, that post was viewed 185,182
times.

At the same time, another photo by Xinhua reporter Ju
Huanzong also received attention. In that photo, the leg of a person
can be seen. The two photos were taken at the same scene. The
photographer probably never realized that his two photos at the scene
would create an outcry about murder most foul.

On the night of July 24, the Ministry of Railway held a
press conference in which very limited information was released. So
there were many questions about the casualty figures and these two photos
only "confirmed" the speculations by Internet users.

One Internet user wrote: "What are they burying? A
whole carriage full of dead bodies? The number of deaths must be far
higher?" Another Internet user wrote: "Why did they have to bury the
carriage? Why can't they regard the train wreckage as the original
evidence for the investigation of the crash? Why? Why?"

A Sina.com microblogger requested the photographer Ju
Huanzong to come out and explain his photos. At 17:41 yesterday, Ju
Huanzong came out and wrote: "Let me dispel the rumor. Will you
please forward these photos." There was a series of three photos of
which the last one was the one that was being widely disseminated.
The three photos showed that a man had held the cross-bar and then let go.
Ju Huanzong wrote: "This was a rescue who was clearing out the wreckage
from inside the train."

But this did not clear up all the questions. Some
Internet users even thought that Ju Huanzong was part of the conspiracy.
Ju Huanzong came back once again and wrote: "In the photo on the left, it
can be seen that the hand belongs to a man who is wearing a China Railways
safety helmet. This is normal safety procedure at the scene of an
incident. The photos were taken sequentially within one minute.
It is normal practice for photojournalists to take multiple photos.
There is no conspiracy here."

[011] Chinese
Translations (2011/07/22) (Florida
Sunshine Blog) We have seen plenty of weird English translations
of Chinese phrases. But the weirdness can go in the other direction.
The following are menu items found on a Royal Carribean cruise ship.

(The
Telegraph) Top Chinese gymnast found begging on the street
Malcolm Moore July 18, 2011.

Zhang Shangwu, 28, a specialist on the still rings,
had even sold the two gold medals he won at the World University
championships in 2001 for just £10 in order to buy food. Mr Zhang said
there were others like him who had found themselves in a desperate
situation after being cut loose from China's state-run sports system.

Speaking on a mobile phone he bought for 30 yuan
(£2.90) in order to find work, Mr Zhang said he had received a phone
call recently from another struggling gymnast. "He thought I might draw
some attention to the problem. But I can barely look after myself at the
moment, let alone take on anyone else's worries," he said.

Born into a peasant family in Baoding, Hebei province,
Mr Zhang was sent to a local gymnastics academy at the age of five.
After seven years of gruelling training, he showed enough promise to be
selected to China's national team and in 2001 he was entered by
officials into the World University Games, despite not having an
education outside his sport.

His gold medal-winning performance was the highlight
of his career, and he seemed certain to make the cut for the 2004 Athens
Olympics until he broke his left Achilles tendon in training in 2002. He
never fully recovered, missed the games, and in 2005 he retired with a
38,000 yuan (£3,650) pay-off from the government in his home province of
Hebei.

"The money meant the local team no longer had to take
any liability for my future," he said. "After I left the sports system,
I got a job as a food delivery boy, but after a while my injury got
worse and worse so eventually I couldn't run or even walk for long
periods".

His savings were wiped out, he said, when his
grandfather had a brain haemorrhage. "That used up all my remaining
money, and then I was forced to sell my medals because I did not have
any money for food."

Shortly afterwards, in 2007, he turned to theft and
was arrested in Beijing, only being released in April this year. "Since
I got out, I have been begging and I was sleeping overnight in an
internet café," he said.

Mr Zhang's situation has shocked China, which spares
no effort in honouring the winners of Olympic gold medals, showering
them and their families with gifts. Critics said that it was
unacceptable for the majority of athletes, who retire in anonymity, to
be left in difficult circumstances.

Xing Aowei, a former team-mate of Mr Zhang and a
winner at the Sydney Olympics in 2000, told a Chinese website that he
was concerned about the impact his story would have on gymnastics. "With
a world champion descending into such a life, who would want to be a
gymnast in the future?" he asked.

Other Chinese sportsmen have also struggled after
leaving the protective blanket of the national team. Ai Dongmei, a
former marathon champion, sold the 10 medals she had won in
international competitions in order to support her family after her
husband was laid off. Zou Chunlan, the national female weightlifting
champion, worked at a public bathhouse as a masseuse.

Mr Zhang said he was now living in a hotel paid for by
a Chinese newspaper and was happy to accept charity until he finds
himself a stable job.

As more and more media outlets pay attention to the
case Zhang Shangwu, the mysteries surrounding this "champion street
performer" are being peeled off one layer after another. Yet even
as we learn more about Zhang Shangwu, our doubts have only increased.
After Zhang Shangwu released his account number to the media and urged
people to donate money to him, the direction of public opinion has
swung. Previously, people were saddened by his ill luck; now they
are angry at him for not trying. So who is Zhang Shangwu? Is
he a liar? Is there an Internet promoter behind the curtains?
Yesterday, our reporter interviewed Zhang Shangwu in the hotel room
where he is staying. The more Zhang Shangwu said, the more holes
were found ...

Zhang Shangwu is a very busy man at the moment.
According to him, he is taking several dozen media interviews each day,
including overseas media outlets such as the Agence France Presse.
But many of sharp questions from reporters have left him speechless.
When he realized that the reporters were questioning the truthfulness of
his allegations, he asked the reporters to leave his room because he
needed a ten minute rest. The reporters waited outside for 30
minutes. When he came out, he said that he needed to get an IV
infusion at the hospital. Our reporter accompanied him to the
community hospital. Zhang told the reporter to wait outside the
clinic. But our reporter witnessed him telling the doctor: "I am a
national champion gymnast. I want an IV infusion."

When Zhang Shangwu got back to the hotel, he told the
media that he wanted them to interview him as groups according to a time
table. When our reporter got back to the hotel yesterday
afternoon, Zhang Shangwu told our reporter by telephone: "You will have
to wait for the 7pm interview. I am somewhat depressed by the CCTV
interview today. I need to have some time to think about how to
respond to the media questions. I cannot repeat things to every
media outlet which seeks me out. I can't handle this."

So a large group of reporters had to wait in the hotel
lobby together. According to several Beijing-based reporters,
Zhang Shangwu had insisted that reporters form queues since yesterday.
"He receives a group of reporters every two hours I finished up
after 10pm last night." Time passed by. More and more
reporters gathered at the scene, but Zhang Shangwu did not show up.
By 7pm, some reporters lost patience and called Zhang Shangwu. He
said that he was on his way to the World Trade Hotel to meet with Yang
Yang of the Champions Foundation and former Olympic champion Xing Aowei.
When the reporters asked him when he can be interviewed, Zhang Shangwu
said that he didn't know. Then he cut off the phone and turned the
machine off.

Our reporter called up Xing Aowei. Xing denied
Zhang Shangwu's statement. Xing said that he had just returned
from Shangdong to Beijing in order to meet with certain Foundation
leaders that night. Xing siad that Zhang Shangwu was not one of
those persons. According to a worker with the Champions
Foundation, Zhang Shangwu had requested yesterday to meet with Xing
Aowei but Xing turned down that request.

When Zhang Shangwu's father heard the news that his
son was begging as a street performed, he hurried to Beijing and looked
up his son in the hotel. Zhang Shangwu's father suffers from a
physical handicap. He told his son that the Hebei Provincial
Sports Bureau has promised to solve Zhang Shangwu's work problem.
But Zhang Shangwu rejected that offer. Previously he had claimed
that he was staying in Beijing "in order to make some money so that his
grandfather can get medical treatment." But he is now saying: "I
want to go home too. But I have to stay in Beijing now because I
have to take the media interviews for the sake of protecting the rights
of retired athletes. I want to use my strength to draw more social
help for the unsuccessful/injured retired athletes."

Yesterday our reporter met with Zhang Shangwu in his
hotel room briefly at around 5pm. With respect to the rejection of
his father's proposal, Zhang Shangwu said that no such thing happened.
At first, he said that he has not met with his father over the past few
days. Then he said that his father came to look for him but they
did not actually meet. Our reporter persisted and displayed the
photo of the meeting between father and son as recorded by a Beijing
newspaper. Zhang Shangwu got mad and said, "This photo is
obviously a fake composite!" When Zhang Shangwu learned that our
reporter had gone to Baoding city to interview his family members, he
got incensed and said: "What they said is false. You people should
go through me first before you interview my parents." A female
reporter retorted: "So does this mean that we can only have your side of
the story? Maybe this is not the truth." Zhang Shangwu did
not respond and he became silent.

Zhang Shangwu was less concerned about the meeting
with the father than with the intentions of the Hebei Province Sports
Bureau. After staying silent for a while, he asked the reporter: "Did
you go to my home? Did you see anyone from the Hebei Province
Sports Bureau?" The reporter replied that there was only someone
from the Baoding City Sports Bureau. Zhang Shangwu asked which
Baoding city leaders were present. The reporter said that only the
Baoding City Sports Bureau director was there and he brought 3,600 RMB
as a gift. Zhang looked disappointed and said, "They don't want me
to hang around Beijing. An extra day of stay here means that
another day of their name getting smeared." After grumbling a few
more sentences, he said that he needed to think how to deal with the
interviews and he asked our reporter to leave the hotel room.

On the afternoon of the day before, the Internet user
nicknamed "-Langfeng" accompanied Zhang Shangwu to obtain a bank card at
the Longtan branch of the Industrial Bank. In his microblog, "-Langfeng"
said that the bank card will be used by Zhang Shangwu to accept
donations. "-Langfeng" also published the account number of that
bank card. This move was met with skepticism and the direction of
public opinion begun to swing. Many Internet users wondered if the
Zhang Shangwu affair was a planned marketing ploy with "-Langfeng" being
the mastermind behind the scene.

In his microblog, "-Langfeng" said: "I am not the
agent/manager of Zhang Shangwu. I am not the mastermind behind the
scene either. When I last met with Zhang Shangwu yesterday
afternoon, he still does not have an agent/manager." "-Langfeng"
was angered by the voices of skepticism. He said that he was
merely friends with Zhang Shangwu and everything that he has posted on
his microblog came during the course of "interaction between friends."
Also: "I didn't participate in the Zhang Shangwu affair and I don't
intend to do so either."

Yesterday our reporter reached "-Langfeng" by
telephone. When "-Langfeng" learned the purpose of the call, he
refused outright to be interviewed: "I am not doing any media interviews
at this time. I am not saying anything." When the reporter
asked him to respond to the doubts from the outside, "-Langfeng" laughed
and said: "Let people say whatever they want. I only know that I
feel no guilt myself. My responses are completely given on my
microblog." Then he hung up the telephone.

In spite of the denials of "-Langfeng", our reporter
have found certain clues in the investigation. According to other
reporters who have spoken to "-Langfeng" before, he appeared to be a
"very intelligent person" who had worked in media and advertising
before. Another Shangdong reporter who had tried to contact "-Langfeng"
before this current affair found that this person did not return
telephone calls or SMS. Yet "-Langfeng" immediately responded when
this reporter sent a SMS to ask about the bank account for donations.
More significantly, "-Langfeng" said on July 14 in his first post about
Zhang Shangwu that "he happened by chance to come across Zhang Shangwu
performing in the subway." On July 15, in the first interview with
a Beijing media outlet, Zhang Shangwu said that he was unaware of the
person going by the nickname "-Langfeng." In fact, Zhang Shangwu
said that he had no idea what a Weibo microblog is. Yet at 23:48
that night, "-Langfeng" posted on his microblog: "Zhang Shangwu
telephoned me. He is staying at a hotel. I am going over
there to see him now. We hope to come up with a better
solution..." If they didn't know each other before, how did Zhang
Shangwu get "-Langfeng"'s telephone number?

According to the Xinhua's report, the Hebei Province
Sports Bureau has stated that Zhang Shangwu had signed an agreement with
the Hebei Sports Talents Service Center. From among the options
offered to Zhang Shangwu, he chose on his own will to retire with a
compensation payment of 63,220 RMB. After Zhang Shangwu took that
money, he is no longer affiliated with the local sports bureau in any
way. Therefore the Baoding City Sports Bureau is going beyond its
responsibilities in offering 3,600 RMB more.

(Oriental
Daily) Chinese Internet users used human flesh search to
identify the location to the front gate of a certain medical equipment
company in Renqiu city, Hebei province. When the video began, the
two children tore at each other without explanation, pulling at each
other's hair. At first, they were evenly matched. But the boy
began to fade and ran away. The girl chased him, punching and
kicking him until he was down on the ground. At this point, the male
adult taking the video began unhappy. He yelled at the boy: "Get up
and hit her! Hit sister!" The two started to fight again, but
the boy took a beating from his female cousin. An adult woman heard
the commotion and came out to find the boy injured with a cut lip.
The adult male laughed and told the girl: "This is how your father got his
training as a child!" He also said: "Good, you can beat up again
later!"

Chinese Internet users call the cameraman cold-blooded
for trying to cultivate children who are filled with hatred and violence.
They called for a human flesh search to find this psycho father.
Other Internet users said that parents believe that the fists represent
the truth because society is unjust and the law is unfair.

[008] The Chaff In The
Case Of "Red Cross Guo Meimei Baby" (07/10/2011) (Wikipedia)
Chaff is a radar countermeasure in which aircrafts spread a cloud of small,
thin pieces of aluminum, metalized glass fiber or plastic, which either
appears as a cluster of secondary targets on radar screens or swamps the
screen with multiple returns.

Here "chaff" refers to the rumors that swirl around any
major incident on the Chinese Internet. At the present, most of the
rumors are generated independently by Chinese Internet users who are
probably looking for traffic and/or seeking to carry out justice.
But there is nothing to stop the practice from evolving into "chaff" --
rumors generated intentionally by the targets of an Internet campaign to
distract and mislead.

In the case of "Red Cross Guo Meimei Baby," I mentioned
that the case has been clogged with chaff to the point where it is hard to
focus on the main points. The microblogger Wendiluo has
listed 20 rumors that gained wide circulation on the Internet. This
will give you some sense as to my frustration about such cases. The
following is a translation which includes some of my own commentary in
case the background is unclear.

1. Shortly after Guo Meimei Baby became an Internet
celebrity for bragging about her wealth and her relationship with the
Red Cross Society of China, the microblog "Guo Changjiang RC" was
registered. Guo Changjiang is a vice president of the Red Cross
Society of China, so some people took this microblogger to be that
person himself. Here are the facts: (1) "Guo Changjiang RC" was
not a verified ID, so it could be anyone; (2) "Guo Changjiang RC"
followed "Guo Meimei Baby" but not vice versa; (3) this user account
went by another name previously and became "Guo Changjiang RC" only
after the case broke open on June 21. In so doing, all the
previous microblog posts had been purged and only three new posts
remained; (4) this account has been deleted by Sina.com with the
explanation that the name "Guo Changjiang RC" was misinformative.
In other words, there is no microblog-related information that Guo
Meimei is connected to Guo Changjiang.

2. Guo Meimei looks different now than compared to her
younger photos, so it is likely that she had undergone cosmetic surgery.
However, the series of the post-surgery face of a young woman said to be
Guo Meimei are fake. The point that Guo Meimei had cosmetic
surgery is not germane to any alleged Red Cross misdeeds and lying about
it only detracts from the other evidence.

3. Guo Meimei and Guo Changjiang were alleged to have
traveled to Australia together. However, the fact is that when Guo
Meimei was in Australia, Guo Changjiang was attending a Red Cross event
in China as found in old news reports.

4. There is a group photo of the Red Cross Society
Commercial Sector in which Red Cross Society vice president Guo
Changjiang was present with many others. One young woman was
identified as Guo Meimei. The Red Cross Society of China has
pointed out that the young woman is a volunteer named Wang Congcong and
her resemblance to Guo Meimei does not stand up to close scrutiny.

5. There is a photo of Guo Meimei sitting in a
first-class airplane seat. Behind her is a middle-aged man that
Internet users have identified to be a certain deputy minister and/or
Red Cross Society of China vice-president named Wang Jun. The man
has come forth to identify himself as a doctor with the Shanghai Chinese
Medicine University named Zhang Xiaotian. He has set up a verified
Weibo account, and provided his own photos as well as air-travel
information. That information can be verified independently.

6. Guo Meimei's racecar is registered to a man named
Wang Jun, born in 1969 and residing in Shenzhen. Wang is a very
common family name in China and Jun was a very popular given name ("Jun"
means "army") at one time. Thus, there must be at least several
tens of thousands of men named "Wang Jun"'s in China, just as there are
several tens of thousands of women named "Li Hong" ("Hong" means "red").
The deputy minister/Red Cross Society of China vice president Wang Jun
was born in 1958 and does not reside in Shenzhen. There is another
Wang Jun who is the son of a Communist Party senior leader and he is
born even earlier.

7. It was alleged that the Wang Jun in the airplane
photo was wearing a Patek Philippe watch. Dr. Zhang Xiaotian has
produced his cheap Russia-made watch that appeared in that photo.

8. Guo Meimei's mother Guo Dengfeng was alleged to
have sold a subsidized housing unit at the end of 2010. A magazine
reporter tracked down the seller as one Guo Dengfeng who had the same
name and lived in the same district. These two women have
different birthdays. It had been alleged that the state land
bureau's website confirmed that personal ID's but the fact is that the
website never shows personal ID's.

9. It was alleged that Guo Meimei attempted to
flee to Australia using a Norwegian passport. The Norwegian
passport was faked from an Internet copy posted by a male Norwegian
artist.

10. There was a photo of Guo Meimei and another young
woman who was identified as Wen Minyi of the Red Cross Society
Commercial Sector. That young woman has been identified as someone
named Zhang Zihan who is not connected to the Red Cross Society
Commercial Sector.

11. There is a photo of Guo Meimei and another woman
embracing each other while the leg of a man was visible. The
accompanying story was that Guo Meimei and her mother are the mistresses
of the same man. No, the other woman in the photo is not the
mother of Guo Meimei. Who is that other woman? Who cares!?
That is just another mass distraction.

12. A young man named Guo Zihao was identified as the
son of Red Cross Society of China vice president Guo Changjiang, and he
was seen flouting his Maserati with license plate "Beijing X88888".
Guo Zihao is not the son of Guo Changjiang (and he has identified his
father as a retired cadre) and the license plate had been processed by
PhotoShop as stated in his own blog post connected to that photo.

13. The Red Cross Society of China issued a
statement to the effect that their vice president Guo Changjiang is not
acquainted with the president of the Shenzhen company which supposedly
hired Guo Meimei as their business general manager. Internet users
said that this was a lie and came up with a photo of a handshake between
the two, except the person in the photo is not Guo Changjiang.

14. An Internet user produced a restaurant receipt
issued to the name of the Red Cross Society Business Society. The
receipt was a spoof which was acknowledged as such by the microblogger
who did it. In China, you can pretty much as for a restaurant
receipt issued to any entity that you care to name.

15. A photo of the military inspection sticker on a
car window had nothing to do with Guo Meimei. It is true that the
photo was taken from the passenger side of a vehicle with a military
inspection sticker, but it was taken by a Beijing microblogger who got a
ride from a friend who was in the military who drove a military vehicle.

16. Phoenix TV's Ruan Cishan said: The Red Cross
Society of China is not a member of the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC). This is wrong because the Red Cross Society
joined the ICRC in 1952, as stated on the official ICRC website.
One may be skeptical about the quality of the work by the Red Cross
Society of China, but the membership status is not beyond doubt.

17. Guo Meimei mentioned a certain Mrs. Cao in her
microblog posts. That Mrs. Cao quickly changed her name and
deleted all her blog posts. However, another netizen assumed the
former name of Mrs. Cao's blog and continued to post. Thus, all
those "new" posts are fakes.

18. It was alleged that <Oriental Daily> (Hong Kong)
is reporting that the Minister of National Defense Liang Guanglie said
that the People's Liberation Army will not be cooperating with the Red
Cross Society of China. No such report can be found. It was
also alleged that when the Hong Kong Legislative Council allotted HKD 10
billion for restoration/reconstruction after the Sichuan earthquake,
they deliberately bypassed the Red Cross Society of China. No such
statement can be found in the Hong Kong Legco proceedings.
Besides, the allotment was for restoration/reconstruction (e.g. roads,
bridges, etc) and not for relief (e.g. food, shelter), and the Red Cross
Society does not do construction work.

19. With respect to the legal representative Wen Minyi
of the Red Cross Society Business Society, it was alleged that her
husband was the Security Exchange Commission Market Supervision
Department director. Instead, it is more likely that the identity
is mistaken with the Red Cross Society Business Society vice president.
These two individual have different names, different birthdays and
different residences.

20. There is a photo featuring the word of disgust "呸"('Pooh')
sent by the VIP microbloggers to the Red Cross Society of China.
This post is falsely attributed to these VIP microbloggers, as is
evident by checking the microblogs of the alleged senders.

Perhaps nobody deserves the crown to "true bizarreness"
than Jiang Pengyong" who made this microblog post. The microblogger
Landlord
has annotated his reactions:

If you are Chinese, you must immediately help me to
forward this post.
I have come upon a piece of information: Guo Meimei has reserved a
first-class airplane ticket from Beijing to Chongqing
She is leaving on July 8th (see photo)
[Make a telephone call quickly]
[Guo Meimei and her mother are running away. To overseas!!!
Who are they meeting in Chongqing!]
My telephone number is 13811620712
[I urgently need help to get political asylum at the US embassy!
Help me! Forward to the media]
They are returning on July 10th.
[The evidence is vanishing. We Internet users have lost
everything]
You know what I mean.
I have tried my best.

Comments:
- It seems that Mr. Jiang has learned that Ms. Guo is flying from
Beijing to Chongqing on July 8th an returning on July 10th. That
is all he knows.
- Then Mr. Jiang deduces that Ms. Guo intends to leave the country.
I am confused. If she wants to leave the country, she should be
flying from Chongqing to Beijing and then abroad. No, instead she
is flying inland from Beijing to Chongqing. Isn't this the wrong
direction?
- He seemed to think that someone wants to kill him to shut him up.
All because he revealed that she is flying to Chongqing! I am
totally flummoxed. She is only taking an airplane, not hijacking
an airplane. Is it necessary to silence him?
- He published his telephone number and he says that he is going to seek
political asylum at the US embassy. Do you think that the
Americans are idiots? Will they believe that your life is in
danger because you just revealed someone's flight schedule? Why
should the Americans save your life? Besides, even if the
Americans really want to save you, how the fart is asking the Chinese
Internet users to forward your post going to achieve that? You
should get the Americans to forward your blog post, or post it on
Twitter!
- "You know what I mean." So far I know nothing!!!
- "I have tried my best." So have I, and I still don't understand
Mr. Jiang's line of reasoning. I don't understand why so many
people accept his logic. Let me repeat this once more: "Because he
revealed that Ms. Guo is flying towards the interior of China, he is
going to be killed in order to keep his mouth shut. Therefore he
needs to get political asylum in America ..."

[007] All Previous
Realities Have Been Cancelled ... (07/08/2011) Most of the Hong
Kong newspapers are featuring the rise of JZM from the dead to the undead on
their front pages today ...

(The
Standard) Dead wrongFurious Beijing officials slammed ATV yesterday for
reporting that Jiang Zemin has died, describing days of intense internet
speculation about the death of the former president as "pure rumor." The
Hong Kong television station announced the death of Jiang on Wednesday,
citing unspecified sources and giving no details. ATV said it would air a
special one- hour tribute, but later canceled it. The broadcaster
yesterday withdrew the report and apologized to viewers, Jiang and his
family. The internet chatter began after Jiang failed to appear at Chinese
Communist Party celebrations and culminated with ATV and Japanese media
putting out reports about his death.
The semi-official China News Agency cited a Central Liaison Office
official as expressing indignation at the ATV report, describing it as a
serious breach of professional ethics. "The report of Asia Television in
Hong Kong was not based on facts and was purely a rumor," the official
said. "We expressed great indignation at the act of ATV as it was a
serious breach of professional ethics in journalism." Xinhua News Agency
said in an English dispatch: "Recent reports by some overseas media
organizations about Jiang Zemin's death from illness are pure rumors."
(The
Standard) 'It's news to me'ATV major investor Wong Ching
denies he is the source of the "Jiang dead" announcement. "I only knew it
after the ATV newscast," Wong said yesterday. However, the mainland
property tycoon - also known as Wang Zheng - added: "It is difficult to
avoid such things in societies like Hong Kong." He made his remarks
surrounded by reporters as he entered ATV headquarters in Tai Po. "I hope
you do not overreact," Wong said. "From my personal point of view, I hope
such news is not true." When asked if he should issue a public apology, he
said: "I don't know. Please ask ATV."

...

However, Hong Kong Daily News and Sing Pao decided that
this dead story is dead and chose to cover the TVB soap opera around
general manager Stephen Chan Chi-wan and the
appearance fee rate card for TVB stars:

JZM photos in those front pages necessarily come from
the archives. <Apple Daily> lived up to its reputation as a "hostile
anti-China force" by having a photo of JZM doing the big yawn. But I
am most interested in the photo chosen by am730. You might have
glossed over it, so here it is again:

In this layout, JZM is holding a document and looking
over his shoulder at the headline: "Sheer Rumor".

Do you recognize the photo? I do. Here is
the full original! I had a chuckle and I hope that you do too!

[Note: I am sure that 99.999999% of my readers
won't recognize my title for this entry: "All previous realities have
been canceled". I won't explain any further -- if you know, you
know; if you don't know, you don't know and you are better off not
knowing.]

Recently, a Chinese Internet user made a post at the
Red Bean Community BBS (Guangxi) to the effect that a Guangxi province
Fangcheng Harbor Honda CR-V vehicle was actually a disguised
Mercedes-Benz M L350. This created an uproar among Chinese
Internet users. According to the photo posted by this Internet
user, the license plate number begins with "Gui P" but the rest of the
information has been erased. The car body had a police insignia
and the letters "Public Security" and "Police" (in Chinese and English).
There is a flash-light on the car roof. According to the
information provided by the Fangcheng public security bureau, the car
was an ownerless car which was turned over to the Dongxing city public
security bureau and turned into a police vehicle. The netizen
claimed that the police car looked like a Honda CR-V in terms of line,
axle and lights. According to information, the Honda CR-V costs
over 200,000 RMB whereas a Mercedes-Benz M L350 costs between 800,000
RMB and 2,000,000 RMB.

For making this modification, the Guangxi province
Fangcheng Harbor public security bureau has been called "a low-profile,
high-intelligence government department." Another netizen was
moved to say: "The Guangxi province Fangcheng city government converted
a public service Benz into a Honda using maximum disguise methods.
They must think that we are idiots."

On July 6, our reporter spoke to the Guangxi province
Fangcheng Harbor public security bureau which said that the said car was
with the Dongxing city public security bureau.

Our reporter contacted the Dongxing city public
security bureau which said "Our bureau never had the police car shown in
the photo. We have never purchased or received through allotment
such a police car. We do not have the so-called police car shown
on the Internet."

Is JZM already dead, still alive or somewhere in between? I have
quickly scanned the various reports. So far he has been reported
dead "by anonymous informed sources" at various locations at various times
from various illnesses. I know that these reports cannot
simultaneously all be
true, but I don't know which one (if any) is true. Frankly, I don't
give a damn either. The man is already 84 years old, and he is dead
now or he will die sooner or later. What is the fuss? Perhaps
this is just another
excuse to condemn the Chinese government for not coming out to deny
rumors, as if that ought to be their full-time top priority. If
there is a story here, it should be why so many mainstream media outlets
fall for this non-event.

[Addendum: Hong Kong's ATV was the first
mainstream media to break the news. Since the major shareholder Wang
Zheng is reportedly a relative of JDZ, it is assumed that ATV must have the inside
scoop. Well, on some other occasion, if Wang Zheng should insist on having
a certain story reported, then everybody would be
screaming "interference with editorial independence"! So why is it
okay now? If he is the source, then he has to be cited as the source
just like any other source. What gives?]

[004] Rumor Du Jour
(07/06/2011) This Weibo microblog post was made at 11:32 on July 5.
It has gathered 13,576 forwards and 2,948 comments in less than 15 hours.

[translation] I just found out that the Hong
Kong SAR government had donated HKD 10 billion with respect to the
Sichuan earthquake. The Legislative Council met and decided that
none of the donations will go through either the Red Cross Society of
China or the Sichuan provincial government. Instead, they asked
the Hong Kong SAR government to form a special work group to assume
direct supervision. As a result, the Red Cross Society of China
threw a fit. But the Hong Kong Legislative Council ignored them
because they throught that the Red Cross Society of China was
untrustworthy.

Here is what a USA-based engineer-blogger "Landlord"
found out after an investigation:

Based upon February 20, 2009 discussion document of
the Hong Kong Legislative Council
FCR(2008-09)66, the Hong Kong SAR government allotted HKD 350
million immediately after the earthquake, subsequently raised another
HKD 2 billion two months later and later raised again to HKD 4 billion
on February 20, 2009. Thus, the total sum is HKD 6.35 billion (or
5.55 billion RMB).

Here the blogger emphasizes that the donation from the
Hong Kong SAR government was a touching humanitarian act. He does
not imply that he was complaining that the amount of money was not HKD
10 million as claimed.

Did the money "not go through the Sichuan government"?
The document (see also this English-language document)
said: "On October 11, 2008, the Hong Kong SAR government signed an
agreement "Cooperative Arrangement on the Support of Restoration and
Reconstruction in the Sichuan Earthquake Stricken Area" with the Sichuan
Provincial Government. "For projects directly funded by donations
from the Hong Kong side, the Sichuan side should be responsible for the
actual implementation, as well as the daily management and supervision
of the projects."

Simply put, the Hong Kong SAR government provided the
funds and the Sichuan Provincial Government proposed the projects (which
are approved by HK SAR) and carried them out.

On the crucial question about whether the Hong Kong
Legislative Council decided that the funds should not go through the Red
Cross Society of China "because it is untrustworthy", the blogger gave
the answer: "I don't know." That is because the Legislative
Council documents gave no evidence one way or the other.

However the blogger does know something else: "In the
two years after the earthquake, 19 cities/provinces (Guangdong, Jiangsu,
Shanghai, Shandong, Zhejiang, Beijing, Liaoning, Henan, Hebei, Shanxi,
Fujian, Hunan, Hubei, Anhui, Tianjin, Heilongjiang, Chongqing, Jiangxi
and Jilin) have donated more than 64 billion RMB to the Sichuan
Earthquake Stricken Area and not a single cent went through the Red
Cross Society of China."

In other words, the Red Cross Society of China (like
Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies in other countries) is
responsible for direct relief of victims (e.g. medical aid, food,
shelter, evacuation, etc) in the immediate aftermath of a natural
disaster, but it is not in the business of restoration/reconstruction
(e.g. building bridges, highways, etc).

The blogger reflects: "All you have to do is move your
lips in order to generate a rumor. For that you can get tens of
thousands of forwards easily! I spent a lot of time and energy to
seek out the truth of the matter, but I would be lucky if this post gets
forwarded a hundred times..."

It is less clear that the original microblogger should
have the full blame. This microblogger "Xiaoyi in Hong Kong V" (V is
for verified status) describes himself as "I am famous as the president of
the Hong Kong Mental Patients Federation. I am interested in
sociology, new media, PR communication and business philosophy. I
have a lot of fun along with the mental patients. I provide free
communication consulting: xicinet@msn.com." If you ask me, this
sounds like a spoof. Who do you blame if you
fall for this?

[003] The Rumor Debate
(07/04/2011) A major reason why productivity on this blog has been way
down this year is that the Chinese Internet is now full of rumors. For
the major breaking stories and scandals, it is now almost certain that at
least 9 out of 10 are fabrications or at least contains fabricated elements.

For illustration, here is one example from yesterday.

[Translation] @Li Yuanmeng: [Yunnan Securities
Regulatory Bureau director Fan Hui] The jade bracelet on her left
wrist is made of violet jade and is worth more than 1,000,000 yuan; the
watch on her right wrist is a Rolex women's oyster-shaped self-winding
calendar watch currently being sold at 176,000 yuan; the ring on her
finger is a Piaget green ring worth 125,000 yuan ...! As a
government official, where did she get the money to buy these expensive
luxury items?

This is an old rumor being recycled. Back on March
22, 2011, CNTV
reported on the case:

Recently, there was an Internet post denouncing the
director of the Yunnan Securities Regulatory Bureau. The post was
titled <The woman who wears a 1,000,000 yuan bracelet: Yunnan Securities
Regulatory Bureau director Fan Hui>. The director Fan Hui is said
to be more extravagant than the fallen bureau director who smoked
sky-high-priced cigarettes. The Yunnan Securities Regulatory
Bureau has made a serious investigation and found that all the listed
assertions were in fact lies. In particular, the photo had been
created by photo editing techniques and then the Internet post was
forwarded anonymously via virtual email boxes and mobile Internet
access.

Why do people do things that this? It is noted
that the latest post was forwarded 2,555 times and commented upon 657
times. You want hits? You fabricate a sensationalistic story
and you get hits.

So why should I keep translating posts such as the one
by @Li Yuanmeng? It may be sensationalistic, but it is also most
likely false.

On this day, the renowned journalist Cheng Yizhong
(former chief editor of Southern Metropolis Daily) made this microblog
post:

In a country where freedom of speech is not protected
and the news media are oppressed, rumors are in fact the truth that is
buried deep inside people's hearts. Rumors are one way for the
masses to express their wishes. Rumors are powerful weapons for
the masses to oppose official propaganda and lies. Rumors are not
facts, but they are much more real than the facts; rumors do not stand
up to scrutiny, but they are more convincing than the truth; rumors are
full of holes, but that does not stop the masses from firmly believing
them. At this time, rumors no longer stop with the wise people;
they can only stop with freedom of speech. [forwarded 669 times,
commented upon 181 times]

Another micblogger Wu Fatian comments:

My views about dispelling rumors: (1) If your
truth is sufficiently strong, you have no need to employ lies to
increase your strength; (2) intentionally fabricating rumors will only
raise concern about the information, thus hurting yourself as well as
others; (3) the correct viewpoint does not need erroneous facts to prove
its correctness; (4) those who dispel rumors can come from the right or
the left, because they share the rumors as their common enemies; (5)
through dispelling rumors, everybody (and especially the elites of
society) will know that they are accountable for what they say and this
will revive trust and social responsibility; (6) seeking the truth should be
in the blood of every media workers and every legal worker.

Mr. Cheng Yizhong thinks that "Rumors are not facts,
but they are much more real than the facts; rumors do not stand up to
scrutiny, but they are more convincing than the truth; rumors are full
of holes, but that does not stop the masses from firmly believing them."
I believe that most of the intentional rumor mongering has nothing to do
with freedom of speech. On the contrary, they come about because
there is too much freedom in Internet speech without any accountability
for fabricating/disseminating rumors.

Another microblogger Dianzizheng who is dedicated to
dispelling rumors comments:

My viewpoint is that advocating the freedom to
fabricate rumors will cause the truth to be covered up by lies and let
the facts be buried under the clouds of rumors. Clearing up rumors
is what the people want and it is also the realization of the ability of
the Internet to clean itself up. Rumors are not facts, because
they are false compared to the facts. Because the rumor mongers
roam all over the Internet, naturally there is now the counter force
arising to dispel the rumors. Rumors are sheer fabrications;
dispelling rumors opens up a brand new world. Dispelling rumors
must not end with targeting unintelligent people; freedom of speech must
begin with dispelling the rumors.

Over the past few months, I have seen so many major
breaking stories turn out to be rumor-fueled. The small number of
stories that I have written about were largely about rumors. So I
have two reactions on this debate.

My first reaction is that the proliferation of rumors
has caused me personally to lose interest in catching up with current
affairs. When at least 9 out of 10 major breaking stories turn out
to be rumors, it is not surprising that my enthusiasm is going to wane.
I don't want to be misled and I don't want to mislead others. I
suspect that this applies to many other people. So how can this be
good when people are turned off by current affairs and politics as a whole?

My second reaction is that even the few significant
stories with elements of truth are getting destroyed by the insertion of
rumors. For example, the case of Guo Meimei Baby should have led to
a serious examination into the workings of the Red Cross Society of China.
Instead people can caught up in a frenzy with calling up the Australian
embassy to look out for a fictional Norwegian passport. And who
fabricated that rumor? A reporter with the newspaper <China
Business> who said that he did it because he did not want the story to die
down. If you had forwarded that post, are you upset at being so
easily deceived? Are you contrite about misleading your followers?
At least, it was possible to check on the Norwegian passport and show that
it was fake just as I did. But what about some of the other current
assertions about the interlocking directorates of the companies related to
the Red Cross Society of China? What is true and what
is false? I can no longer tell ...

If within a period of time P1, the number of persons
passing through lane 1 is Y1 per minute, then the total number of persons
passing through lane 1 is (P1 times Y1); etc. The total number of
marchers is the total number of persons passing through all lanes through
the entire march period.

According to the counters, the total number of marchers
passing through the observation point is 41,019. This count can be
audited by checking the videotapes taken.

Start

End

Lane 1

Lane 2

Lane 3

Total

14:40

14:59

309

0

0

309

15:00

15:19

0

0

0

0

15:20

15:39

0

0

0

0

15:40

15:59

0

0

0

0

16:00

16:19

9

11

0

20

16:20

16:39

538

833

433

1805

16:40

16:59

1072

1658

1145

3875

17:00

17:19

825

1085

982

2892

17:20

17:39

1520

1882

1728

5130

17:40

17:59

1305

1732

1512

4548

18:00

18:19

1433

1672

1335

4440

18:20

18:39

1174

1248

1017

3439

18:40

18:59

785

1077

1751

3613

19:00

19:19

1043

1685

1180

3908

19:20

19:39

727

1005

807

2538

19:40

19:59

400

547

575

1522

20:00

20:19

348

663

657

1668

20:20

20:39

275

470

437

1182

20:40

20:59

48

3

80

131

Total

11811

15571

13638

41019

The above count does not include those persons who
either left the march before the observation point or joined the march
after the observation point. Between July 5 and August 20, 2010, the
HKU POP inserted a question about participation in the 7/1 march. Of
those who claimed to have participated, 70.4% said that they passed
through the observation point. This meant that the raw count of
41,019 should be adjusted upwards by a factor of 100 / 70.4 = 1.42.
Thus, the estimated crowd size this year is about 58,000.

Here are the crowd size estimates over the years:

Year

Organizers' Estimates

Government/Police Estimates

HKU POP
Estimates

2003

500,000+

350,000

462,000

2004

530,000

200,0000

192,000

2005

21,000

17,000

22,000

2006

58,000

28,000

36,000

2007

68,000

20,000

32,000

2008

47,000

15,500

17,000

2009

76,000

28,000

34,000

2010

52,000

20,000

23,000

2011

218,000

54,000

58,000

[Here is a brief history about the Hong
Kong 7/1 crowd size estimates. In 2003, nobody anticipated the large
turnout so the estimates were crude. In 2004 (The Hong Kong 7/1 March: Crowd Size
Estimates), there was a major controversy over the crowd size as the
organizers insists on a figure of 530,000 whereas six other independent
studies put the number at 200,000 or less. In coming up with their
estimates, the organizers committed an arithmetic error that is well-known
in the tree distance problem in elementary school arithmetic class.
The resulting controversy resulted in the focus being turned away from the
basic fact that 200,000 persons were stating their demands to a discussion of
statistics and academic freedom. In 2005 (July
1 Afternoon March Estimates), the organizers made an initial claim which
was widely reported by the media but had to revise downwards as they had
to respect their own research data (which matched the academic teams).
Since 2006, the organizers have made their crowd size estimates without disclosure of
methodology. Their numbers are significantly higher than the numbers
from the several academic teams (including the Hong Kong University Public
Opinion Programme) which largely agree with each other and which make full
disclosure of their methodology and data.]

[Addendum: Another team headed by Paul Yip Siu-fai, professor of
social work and social administration at the University of Hong Kong, set
the turnout at 60,000 to 70,000, based on videos and on-site polls. ]

The Civil Human Rights Front, the police and the
scholars each have their own crowd size estimates. In particular,
the Civil Human Rights Front's estimate is three times higher than the
Hong Kong University scholars' estimates.

According to professor Paul Yip Siu-fai, a team of
graduate students counted the number of marchers at Percival Street and
found an average of 200 persons per minute going past. Over four
hours, the total was about 48,000 persons. Adding the number of
persons who did not go past the observation point with intercept
interviews leads to a number not greater than 64,000. Yip Siu-fai
said: "If 220,000 participated, then there must be more than 800 persons
going past every minute. They can't do it even if they were marching
in quick steps in a military parade. If they walked at a normal
pace, the march would finish around 1am if there were 220,000 marches as
the Civil Human Rights Front claimed."

The Civil Human Rights Front convenor said that they
used eight volunteers to count at Causeway Bay, Wanchai and Central, and
that their statistical tallies are reliable. He had no intention of
questioning the counting methodology used by the Hong Kong University.
He said: "We will not squabble over how to count people. We don't
want the focus to be shifted."]